Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds the admin-only requirement and the flexible lookup mechanism, but does not disclose what happens when both position_id and position_title are provided, whether new_permissions replaces or merges existing permissions, or behavior on invalid/unknown positions. This is a partial disclosure for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one sentence plus a short lookup hint, concisely stating the action, scope, and permission requirement. Every phrase adds value with no redundant wording, making it easy to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 5 optional parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally sufficient: it communicates the core purpose, admin constraint, and lookup strategy. However, it lacks guidance on what happens if no fields are supplied, conflict handling for the two search parameters, and the exact return payload, leaving gaps for an agent to resolve.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage). The tool description adds the relationship between position_id and position_title ('Find by title or ID') and the admin restriction, contributing some extra meaning beyond the schema. It does not fully compensate for the ambiguity of optional fields when no updates are provided.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Update a position's title, description, or permissions', specifying the verb, resource, and exact fields. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like create_position, delete_position, and list_positions by focusing on mutation of an existing position.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage context: it is for updating existing positions, restricted to admin users, and identifies a lookup method ('Find by title or ID'). However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios where create_position or delete_position would be more appropriate, though these are implied by sibling names.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.